Project Censored

I am astounded by the resignation of Project Censored judges
Jensen and Solomon in protest of PC's inclusion of the 9/11 research of
Steven Jones on its most censored stories list. I fail to understand how
Jensen and Solomon could admit that there are significant unanswered 9/11
questions, while stridently opposing research aimed at exploring those
questions.

If there were even a five percent chance that the official
9/11 story is untrue, the historic importance of that possibility would
dictate that any rational American devote all available time and energy to
resolving those doubts, and encouraging any and all potentially relevant
research.

In fact, the official story is demonstrably untrue. The
FBI has stated and reiterated that Osama Bin Laden, wanted for the African
embassy bombings, is "not wanted for 9/11" because there is "no hard
evidence" connecting him to 9/11. (See: http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html)

The FBI's position should not come as a surprise. All four
major pieces of evidence in support of the official story have been shown by
mainstream sources to have been fabricated.

1) Atta's suitcase containing the names of the alleged 19
hijackers, along with a "will" that can easily be proven to be a forgery,
was admitted by a top US intelligence official to have been planted as
fabricated evidence. In an interview with Seymour Hersh, that official,
speaking primarily of the suitcase and its flight manual, said "whatever
evidence was left was left deliberately for the FBI to chase." Note that
this suitcase, conveniently discovered on 9/11, was and remains the only
source of the 19 names blamed for 9/11. Apart from this suitcase, the FBI
admits that it has found absolutely nothing implicating any of the alleged
hijackers--and that the actual identities of the hypothetical hijackers
remain in doubt. (1)

2) The only important source on the alleged hijackers'
activities in Germany is another "magic suitcase" -- this one delivered into
the hands of the German police by a self-proclaimed good samaritan burglar.
According to Der Spiegel, which has generally defended the official 9/11
story, the German police know that this "burglar" was obviously an
intelligence agent. (2)

3) The so-called Osama Bin Laden confession video of December
2001, in which OBL seems to demonstrate foreknowledge and approval of the
9/11 attacks, is "bogus" according to leading OBL expert Bruce Lawrence,
head of Religious Studies at Duke University. Lawrence adds that all of his
many contacts in the CIA's OBL unit know that it is bogus. The "confession
video" contradicts numerous earlier authentic interviews in which OBL denied
any involvement in 9/11, deplored the attacks as un-Islamic, and blamed
American Zionists for them. Surely the US media's neglect of these earlier
interviews, and its hyping of the bogus confession, qualify as censorship of
an extreme kind! (3)

4) Aside from the three above items, the only major support
for the official story consists of alleged statements under interrogation by
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) which are cited, without any specificity of
either content or context, as footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Yet there is absolutely no verifiable record of KSM ever being arrested or
interrogated. In fact, KSM's alleged arrest in Pakistan seems to have been a
staged, fictitious event. When the US/Pakistani authorities showed what
they claimed was actual video footage of KSM's arrest to journalists, the
journalists derided it as an inept attempt to pass off an obviously staged,
fictitious event as an actual police raid and arrest. (4)

Since we now know that the official story rests on these and
other less significant pieces of fabricated evidence, planted by
intelligence agents to falsely implicate OBL and 19 alleged hijackers, the
most reasonable hypothesis is that 9/11 was a psychological operation
designed to grease the skids for war in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Research appearing to confirm this hypothesis, like that of Steven Jones,
should not be dismissed a priori, least of all by Project Censored.
In fact, I suspect that when the dust has settled, future historians will
wonder whypost-9/11 Project Censored has examined anything other
than 9/11 stories, compared to which almost all of its other censored
stories are trivial.

And also Insight magazine 6/11/2003," FBI Denies
Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists": "In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that
there is `no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.'
After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up
stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story
disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In
fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs
of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting
that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be
unknown. Mueller just left the door open." Archived at http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_denies_mix_up_of_911_terrorists.htm

2) "It makes for a great story. A petty thief pilfers files
containing critical information about the largest terrorist attack in
history and dutifully turns them over to the police. BKA agents do not buy
this story for a minute; they suspect that some other secret service was
trying to find a way of getting evidence into BKA hands. The question is,
whose secret service?" Der Spiegel journalists and editors, Inside 9/11:
What Really Happened (NY: St. Martins, 2002).

ISLAMABAD - A grainy video purporting to show the arrest of
two al Qaeda leaders has done little to deflect accusations that Pakistan
may have staged this month's raid to give it leeway to abstain in a U.N.
vote on an Iraq war.

On Monday, the powerful military Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI) held an unprecedented news conference to show foreign journalists what
it said were images of a March 1 raid in Rawalpindi that netted al Qaeda
kingpin Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

But few of journalists present were convinced the video --
which did not show Mohammed's face nor any sign of a struggle -- was
genuine. Many said it looked like a crude reconstruction."

I am surprised that you are apparently the only journalist to
report this story, which raises important issues. Perhaps you should be a
candidate for Project Censored recognition?

I am a retired litigation attorney, initially admitted to the
bar in Springfield after graduating from the U of Chicago law school almost
fifty years ago. After spending much time evaluating evidence concerning
destruction of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/01, I have found the controlled
demolition hypothesis advanced by Dr. Steven E. Jones to be extremely
important and credible, and worthy of official investigation.

So, I am puzzled and troubled by apparent condemnations of
Dr. Jones' work by distinguished progressive journalists, like Robert Jensen
and Norman Solomon, who nonetheless concede "that there are unanswered
[9/11] questions." It is difficult for me to believe that they have
carefully evaluated the important evidence supporting Dr. Jones, and
impeaching official explanations. And I hope that they might reconsider
their positions.

Apart from your article, do you know of any further
explanations offered by Jensen or Solomon to justify their denunciations of
Dr. Jones and others seeking new official 9/11 investigations of "unanswered
questions" about possible use of pre-planted explosives?

Sincerely,

Ron Rattner, San Francisco

PS. I am sending copies of this inquiry to other involved
persons, and would welcome their comments.

Please
Support MUJCA-NET MUJCA-NET needs your support. We are a
non-profit organization and the scale of our activities depends
entirely on your generosity. We would like to get copies of David
Griffin's two 9/11 books (see above) into the hands of every
religious leader in America. And we would like to push 9/11 truth
onto the front pages of every newspaper in America. But we can't do
it without your help. If you would like to donate to MUJCA-NET,
click here.